You're talking about level playing fields when it comes to Schumacher?

What happened to Schumacher in 2010 when Bridgestone were no longer making bespoke tyres for him?

Which raises the question, how would Vettel appear now if he didn't make the mistake of going up against a good driver in 2014 in Ricciardo. Although Vettel probably didn't realise he was taking such a risk at the time as Ricciardo looked pretty average before then.

Without 2014, Vettel's first 10 years in the sport would look exactly like Schumachers. 10 seasons, 10 wins against his team mate. 4 world titles. Maybe if Vettel went his entire career without going against a top driver he would be in the greatest of all time discussion too.

Its a shame that Schumacher only went against a top driver once he was old and rusty. Senna, joined Prosts team and was quicker from the very first test. But as we saw in 2014, if you have a car that is the class of the field but has a mechanical issue 40% of the time then no matter who is in your cars. That is 1988. 1989 is an extreme version (in terms of reliability for the better driver) of 2016 with Senna as Hamilton. That is doing Rosberg a bit of a disservice though as he was a lot closer to Hamilton than Prost was to Senna.

Not a Prost bash, but he only won races when Senna had issues. If neither had issues, Senna won. The counter to that is that Prost had better mechanical sympathy, which may well be true but during 1988 Prost actually had more mechanical issues than Senna (but they occurred when he was running 2nd place anyway). For the record, Senna, Schumacher and Prost and my top 3 drivers of all time (1983 onwards since I've been watching)

When Ferrari eventually signed what was seen as a tier 1 driver in Kimi, Schumacher retired.

I'm a big boxing fan and when they review the greatest boxers of all time it's not just the titles they win but who did they beat, Schumacher beat a list of tier 2 drivers, Vettel's never beat a tier 1 driver.

I don't think it's at all ridiculous. Just like I grew up in Harlem New York and lived the evolution of Hip-Hop, and while great in his own regard, there is no way in hell Biggie Smalls was the greatest rapper of all time, and even less, his once good friend turned enemy 2Pac. Biggie was considerably better in all but one facet and that was running his mouth rather ignorantly because no one did that better than 2Pac.

However, millions of people bought into the hype their personal battle created which was all-out war that ended in the murder of one of them and the other met his demise because he couldn't bring himself to stop acting like an ignorant "Thug" he was aspiring to be. From a ballet aficionado to a comedic rap group's puppy dog groupie, to hawrdcwore Nigga! after a role he landed without intending to which IS what he molded his persona after. And to be be clear, there isn't a single greatest rapper of all time, but there is a handfull of guys who are that almost equally, with the pendulum leaning towards 2 more than any others. Eminem and Busta. However, saying that around a group of people who bought into the hype of the media, spawned by their premature deaths, and you might as well be speaking politics because in their minds what they've been conditioned to believe just is and to entertain anything different is lunacy, even though the material is there to be gone over.

The same is true of Senna and when it comes to Jochen Rindt, even more so. I'll say he's absolutely most overrated championship winning driver of all time and only because he was crowned WDC posthumously. THAT is sadly his real claim to fame. He was at best decent in decent cars and he died 4 with 4 races to go driving a Dominant Lotus-Ford that made him look better than he was, but the 1970 season was so erratic in terms of drivers actually finishing races that any driver who made it to the finish line towards the front consistently had a shot of winning. luckily for Rindt his Lotus proved more reliable than most other front runners.

Now Jim Clark is completely different animal. And by animal I do mean ANIMAL. So good was he that drivers would be perplexed at how he took corners so fast that he'd literally explain to them exactly how he was able to do so and would then jump in his car and have them follow him around the track at moderate speeds so they could see and learn his line before going all out for blistering laps and they STILL couldn't match his time.

The only other sports figure I know to have done this was Dion Sanders. As a cornerback (his first position - the greatest ever there) he'd tell wide receivers how to beat him and when they'd finally get tired of him destroying them and would finally listen, they'd burn him, thinking they had him beat, only to have him make the adjustment and run around them to either break the play up or make an interception. When converted to a wide receiver He'd tell cornerbacks how they should cover him and would then tell them the route he was running and STILL there was nothing they could do to stop him.

In F1 the only other driver that was that much better than his contemporaries was Michael. Heck, they even had complete telemetry and still couldn't match him. Senna was close to this but a good deal of his amazing laps where he passed several people were only possible because drivers didn't want to end their races prematurely. Excluding wet races of course because Senna was almost always untouchable in wet conditions.

Upon his death, Senna was elevated to legendary status effective immediately, and anyone who disagreed with that either hated the guy or was talking nonsense.

Senna was already seen as the best in the sport before he died. I don't think his reputation suddenly grew afterwards

Was you old enough to watch Senna race, Zoue?

I had that privilege, yes. I first got hooked around 1981/82. Piquet was my favourite at the time

Right, I can remember watching races in the early 80's but didn't really get hooked on it until 1984, the year that Senna debuted.

I remember thinking that Villenueve was a mad man, then Piquet sort of emerged as the best for me until he got paired with Mansell, then I saw Prost as the best until he got paired with Senna.

Mansell did surprise me, I will admit, but I think Piquet was still the better driver until his accident. His overtake on Senna at Hungary in 1986 still ranks as the most spectacular I've ever seen and demonstrated his awesome car control. After his accident he was never quite the same again.

I wasn't too keen on Senna originally, possibly out of some youthful misplaced loyalty to Piquet, but gradually I came around and towards the end it was impossible for me not to acknowledge him as the best

Senna was already seen as the best in the sport before he died. I don't think his reputation suddenly grew afterwards

He was seen as the best in the sport by some, others (myself included) felt Prost was the better of the two and in his final year of F1 Prost once again beat a solid field of drivers that included Senna, and all after sitting out a full year.

What was said is that Senna was the best of his generation and that's what I disagree with. He certainly had the pure talent to be just that but since he resorted to things other than driving frequently, and was as arrogant as he was, he took away from his place on the list of greats for me personally.

At the time of his death the NKOTB was Schumacher and while perhaps not as good as Senna at that point, he was just about there and had he not died, Schumacher would have have beaten him just like everyone else. The one thing about Senna is that while he was quicker than everyone else, he was only just so. Schumacher on the other hand was initially just faster than everyone but once he got a couple years of experience under his belt, he was considerably faster than everyone including his teammates and none of them came close consistently until Rubens in a couple of seasons.

Please understand that I know full well the capabilities of Senna in a race car, but being the best entails more than just that. Knowing that Senna was faster than Prost on pure pace, it speaks to Prost's completeness because although Senna was generally a touch quicker he was NEVER outclassed and held his own extremely well. That's why I rate Prost the best driver of that generation.

Prost beat Senna in 1993 because he had much the better car, what is more telling is that Williams replaced Prost with Senna the year after, some forumers may think that Prost was better, the people that count in the paddock thought otherwise.

Senna was half a second quicker than Hill, this was basically the level of competition that Schumacher had left to beat, and you think Schumacher is beating Senna in 1995, 1996 and 1997 in an inferior car, really?

This is a bit over simplistic though.

Hill only got a sniff of Schumacher because of the penalties in '94. It is true that Hill was nowhere near Senna's level and it is true that Schumacher didn't have a Prost to compete against. But Senna was getting older and he would have been 37 in 1997, he was already feeling uneasy when refuelling was brought back in and the speeds where getting faster. Do you honestly think 100% that Schumacher couldn't have beat him? Bear in mind that Senna wanted to finish at Ferrari according to LdM, so we would never know how that would have played.

First of all I never mentioned 1994.

No I don't believe that Schumacher is beating Senna in an inferior car, Schumacher himself was still competitive at 36 and those cars were plenty fast, he could live with Alonso at that age.

Senna may have wanted to finish his career with Ferrari but no way would he walked away from the best car, his career is defined by wanting to be in the best car, as soon as Mclaren could no longer deliver that he left.

If anyone replicated what Senna did to Prost in Suzuka 1990, today, I'd be pretty confident that a (multi) race ban would be applied. I'm assuming that intent would be proven.

I was thinking of this exact analogy myself...

For 1988 to re-occur we would need.

Verstappen to join Mercedes and immediately be 0.3-0.4 quicker than Hamilton from the very first race. Dominant him all season with Hamilton picking up wins and staying in the title fight when Max makes errors (Monaco) and has mechanical issues. In fact, Hamilton would win 7 races in the year, 1 when Max made an error and 6 when Max had a mechanical issue.

The trend would be even more extreme in the second season with Max even further ahead but allegedly Max would be getting more powerful but more unreliable engines that ironically lose him the title. Hamilton, having his worst season on his entire career to date wins the title before jumping ship to Ferrari who now have a very promising car themselves.

I wonder if there would be posters claiming Hamilton was better still in that scenario.

If anyone replicated what Senna did to Prost in Suzuka 1990, today, I'd be pretty confident that a (multi) race ban would be applied. I'm assuming that intent would be proven.

I was thinking of this exact analogy myself...

For 1988 to re-occur we would need.

Verstappen to join Mercedes and immediately be 0.3-0.4 quicker than Hamilton from the very first race. Dominant him all season with Hamilton picking up wins and staying in the title fight when Max makes errors (Monaco) and has mechanical issues. In fact, Hamilton would win 7 races in the year, 1 when Max made an error and 6 when Max had a mechanical issue.

The trend would be even more extreme in the second season with Max even further ahead but allegedly Max would be getting more powerful but more unreliable engines that ironically lose him the title. Hamilton, having his worst season on his entire career to date wins the title before jumping ship to Ferrari who now have a very promising car themselves.

I wonder if there would be posters claiming Hamilton was better still in that scenario.

Senna was already seen as the best in the sport before he died. I don't think his reputation suddenly grew afterwards

I respectfully disagree. At that time, Prost was the man who had the most WDC's, and other significant records. He was king of the mountain. Yes, Senna was climbing that mountain, and getting close. But he perished before he eclipsed Prost on those records.

If Senna had lived to a ripe old age, he may have eclipsed Prost in those records. But he did not, we will never know. IMO many people assume that if Senna had not been killed, he would have held more records. But some people place Senna in the highest status based on not what he did, but what he might have done.

Prost had more titles, true. But most considered Senna better than him, especially given their time together at McLaren. Not many thought Prost to be the quicker driver, although he was certainly famed for being a cerebral one.

What other significant records are you thinking of? Senna had double Prost's pole tally and his win percentage was (just!) higher, too. It took Schumacher much longer to eclipse Senna's pole record, it was that good, and even then it took him nearly double the number of entries to achieve it. Monaco, which was (and for many, still is) considered the greatest test of driver skill, was Senna's own and only cemented his skill in many people's eyes.

Not take anything away from Prost, justifiable considered one of the greats. But to most Senna was other-wordly long before he died

Senna was already seen as the best in the sport before he died. I don't think his reputation suddenly grew afterwards

He was seen as the best in the sport by some, others (myself included) felt Prost was the better of the two and in his final year of F1 Prost once again beat a solid field of drivers that included Senna, and all after sitting out a full year.

What was said is that Senna was the best of his generation and that's what I disagree with. He certainly had the pure talent to be just that but since he resorted to things other than driving frequently, and was as arrogant as he was, he took away from his place on the list of greats for me personally.

At the time of his death the NKOTB was Schumacher and while perhaps not as good as Senna at that point, he was just about there and had he not died, Schumacher would have have beaten him just like everyone else. The one thing about Senna is that while he was quicker than everyone else, he was only just so. Schumacher on the other hand was initially just faster than everyone but once he got a couple years of experience under his belt, he was considerably faster than everyone including his teammates and none of them came close consistently until Rubens in a couple of seasons.

Please understand that I know full well the capabilities of Senna in a race car, but being the best entails more than just that. Knowing that Senna was faster than Prost on pure pace, it speaks to Prost's completeness because although Senna was generally a touch quicker he was NEVER outclassed and held his own extremely well. That's why I rate Prost the best driver of that generation.

I think almost all you write in this post is reasonable except for the BIB. On pure speed Senna was a lot faster than his opposition by F1 standards. He ha a bigger advantage over most of his team mates than Schumacher had over his. Just look at his record against Prost who was also incredibly quick. Senna came up against stronger opposition than Schumacher and for pure speed was further ahead of them.

I rate Schumacher as the greatest of all time but Senna did have a bigger pace advantage over his peers.

First of all, he was considerably faster that all his teammates with the exception of Prost outside a few races where he was "inexplicably" faster when Prost knew he got every last bit of performance his car had to offer. The worst kept secret in McLaren history was the fact that Senna was Honda's golden boy and they made sure his equipment received that little bit more attention. That's not a level playing field.

Schumacher on the other hand whooped up on his teammates so easily that Brawn and company can't explain it. So good was Schumacher that his teammates would provide feedback as to what the cars were doing and they'd make changes to address the issues for his teammates but Schumacher hit the track and there was no difference in timing. As far as I know that was NEVER the case with Senna and setup changes affected him to some degree.

You're talking about level playing fields when it comes to Schumacher?

What happened to Schumacher in 2010 when Bridgestone were no longer making bespoke tyres for him?

Joachin Rindt was way before my time and I appreciate that you know far more about him, however he is only remembered as being the posthumous champion, I never see him being labelled as one of the greats, his reputation being exaggerated by his death.

Schumacher was the best for a decade, but this was seen as a weakened F1 with the retirement of Prost and the death of Senna, Schumacher was not seen as being better than Senna at the time they raced together, but now for some seemingly Schumacher is an all time great and Senna is a great exaggerated by his death?

This is a period of F1 that I lived through and I think these views are basically by people who didn't rate Senna that highly in the first place and now in a kind of reverse psychology use his death as an exaggeration of his ability of a driver like I say that they neither liked or rated that highly in the first place.

I lived through it and like Jim Clark before him this was seen as a death of a great, the death of a F1 flag bearer, a death which brought Murray Walker to tears and he couldn't talk and James Hunt basically had to take the microphone off him. Now we are told that his death and a film have over time just exaggerated his standing in the sport, this like I say by people who never rated him in the first place or simply didn't like him.

Wow, you really wrote a lot of carp in this post Poker, not your usual style.

Schumacher is seemingly an all time great? The weakened F1 is always an argument, for a different discussion maybe. But he "seemingly" is an all time great?

And maybe, just maybe, you are still missing the whole point. No one said that his status elevated BECAUSE of Senna's death. Just that his already high status got to silly levels after his death. And this is exactly what has happened. Senna was amazeballs when he was racing, that's not debated. But years after the Senna craze has calmed down, some people can remember that he also had a dark side, with regards to racing of course. Hell, that interview with Steward is actually there to show you that not everyone thought that what Senna touched was gold, even back then. You somehow twisted this that these claims are from people not liking Senna in the first place... And of course there may be people who never bought into the Senna craze, but you'd have to be blind not to see that the guy was the real deal.

Dying young always added some romanticism. And as bad as it sounds, I don't think some people, especially the younger generations, would know the names of Winkelhock, Pryce or Ratzenberger if it wasn't for their deaths. Of course, arguably some of them never got their chance to shine.

The seemingly was the comparison with Senna were Schumacher didn't need to be killed in order to gain a higher level of respect that Senna.

Senna was viewed as the man up to his death, even over Schumacher, if anything his death elevated Schumacher's position in F1 as he just had tier 2 drivers to contend with for a good while after that, but apparently Senna's death just exaggerated his career, he never was the man in the first place, he never was viewed as the best at that time.

There's been loads of drivers killed in F1 were is all the romanticism about these drivers, I don't see it.

Where are you getting these from? That's a borderline delusional opinion. Who in his right mind would say that Senna wasn't the man in the first place?

This all stems from Blake's post, which if you read properly you'll see that he says that a death tends to elevate someone's ALREADY great status.

I hope you understand how and why. No one saw him old and fat like Mansell for example not being able to fit in the car. Or past it like Jacques where his own BAR crew was laughing at him spinning around the track.

I read it for what he said, that Senna's career has been exaggerated because of his death which always tends to happen, however he wouldn't be saying this about someone like Jim Clark for instance.

Then I worry about your reading skills. I did not get this from Blake's comment. He clearly mentions that Senna's status was already elevated. If this is not easy to understand then I don't know what to say

Hill only got a sniff of Schumacher because of the penalties in '94. It is true that Hill was nowhere near Senna's level and it is true that Schumacher didn't have a Prost to compete against. But Senna was getting older and he would have been 37 in 1997, he was already feeling uneasy when refuelling was brought back in and the speeds where getting faster. Do you honestly think 100% that Schumacher couldn't have beat him? Bear in mind that Senna wanted to finish at Ferrari according to LdM, so we would never know how that would have played.

I don't think Senna would have won 1994 as he would be 30-0 down...

But Senna out qualified Hill by an average of 0.7 in there 3 races and in the only race they did (Brazil) Senna was just about to lap him and both had clean races. Schumacher lapped Hill in 4 of the first 6 races in 1994. That is how bad the Williams was.

That is the same Hill, who beat Schumacher head to head in the wet later in the year in Japan, lost some other races narrowly and hounded him around Adelaide in the final round all race before they collided. Senna in the mid season onwards Williams would have been walking races.

The 1995 Williams was also the class of the field, Hill completely messed that title up.

Williams was bad at the beginning of the season; only when they upgraded the car it became the best package on the field. So while Senna was 30-0 in the beginning, he would have most certainly caught up. But, since we are at the what if territory, it may also be that withoutmissing 4 races, Schumacher would have beaten Hill by a big margin by the end. Or even Senna, albeit not by much. Who knows?

Hill only got a sniff of Schumacher because of the penalties in '94. It is true that Hill was nowhere near Senna's level and it is true that Schumacher didn't have a Prost to compete against. But Senna was getting older and he would have been 37 in 1997, he was already feeling uneasy when refuelling was brought back in and the speeds where getting faster. Do you honestly think 100% that Schumacher couldn't have beat him? Bear in mind that Senna wanted to finish at Ferrari according to LdM, so we would never know how that would have played.

I don't think Senna would have won 1994 as he would be 30-0 down...

But Senna out qualified Hill by an average of 0.7 in there 3 races and in the only race they did (Brazil) Senna was just about to lap him and both had clean races. Schumacher lapped Hill in 4 of the first 6 races in 1994. That is how bad the Williams was.

That is the same Hill, who beat Schumacher head to head in the wet later in the year in Japan, lost some other races narrowly and hounded him around Adelaide in the final round all race before they collided. Senna in the mid season onwards Williams would have been walking races.

The 1995 Williams was also the class of the field, Hill completely messed that title up.

Williams was bad at the beginning of the season; only when they upgraded the car it became the best package on the field. So while Senna was 30-0 in the beginning, he would have most certainly caught up. But, since we are at the what if territory, it may also be that withoutmissing 4 races, Schumacher would have beaten Hill by a big margin by the end. Or even Senna, albeit not by much. Who knows?

Indeed, we will never know.

I kept the discussion to on track performance as the actual points situation was largely down to penalties. By by the seasons end, Hill (inferior to Schumacher) was able to beat, match or get close to Schumacher most of the time meaning Senna would having likely won easily or narrowly beat Schumacher in nearly all those races, possibly suffering one or two narrow losses over those last 10 races (the period once Williams was able to seriously compete).

1994 I think Schumacher might have just held on for the title but there is every chance that over the last 10-11 races in Senna hands the 1994 Williams would look more like the 1992 or 1993 Williams so it might have been close come the seasons end but that still may not have been enough if Schumacher drove for points.

I think 1995 would have been predictable in the Williams would have the best car and likely still the best or not far from the best drive and no drivers would have moved team.

1996 is becomes more blurry as literally anything could have happened with regards to driver movements or retirements. Maybe Williams would have signed Schumacher alongside Senna knowing Senna is aging. But the champion would likely be a Williams driver. 1996 on wards Senna certainly would have been going toward past his peak and it all depends on how competitive Schumachers car would have been but again likely a Senna title. 1997 on wards is too far into the "what if" to speculate for me. If I had to guess, I would say Schumacher wins the title in 1994 and Senna in 1995 and 1996.

Senna was already seen as the best in the sport before he died. I don't think his reputation suddenly grew afterwards

He was seen as the best in the sport by some, others (myself included) felt Prost was the better of the two and in his final year of F1 Prost once again beat a solid field of drivers that included Senna, and all after sitting out a full year.

What was said is that Senna was the best of his generation and that's what I disagree with. He certainly had the pure talent to be just that but since he resorted to things other than driving frequently, and was as arrogant as he was, he took away from his place on the list of greats for me personally.

At the time of his death the NKOTB was Schumacher and while perhaps not as good as Senna at that point, he was just about there and had he not died, Schumacher would have have beaten him just like everyone else. The one thing about Senna is that while he was quicker than everyone else, he was only just so. Schumacher on the other hand was initially just faster than everyone but once he got a couple years of experience under his belt, he was considerably faster than everyone including his teammates and none of them came close consistently until Rubens in a couple of seasons.

Please understand that I know full well the capabilities of Senna in a race car, but being the best entails more than just that. Knowing that Senna was faster than Prost on pure pace, it speaks to Prost's completeness because although Senna was generally a touch quicker he was NEVER outclassed and held his own extremely well. That's why I rate Prost the best driver of that generation.

Prost beat Senna in 1993 because he had much the better car, what is more telling is that Williams replaced Prost with Senna the year after, some forumers may think that Prost was better, the people that count in the paddock thought otherwise.

Senna was half a second quicker than Hill, this was basically the level of competition that Schumacher had left to beat, and you think Schumacher is beating Senna in 1995, 1996 and 1997 in an inferior car, really?

This is a bit over simplistic though.

Hill only got a sniff of Schumacher because of the penalties in '94. It is true that Hill was nowhere near Senna's level and it is true that Schumacher didn't have a Prost to compete against. But Senna was getting older and he would have been 37 in 1997, he was already feeling uneasy when refuelling was brought back in and the speeds where getting faster. Do you honestly think 100% that Schumacher couldn't have beat him? Bear in mind that Senna wanted to finish at Ferrari according to LdM, so we would never know how that would have played.

First of all I never mentioned 1994.

No I don't believe that Schumacher is beating Senna in an inferior car, Schumacher himself was still competitive at 36 and those cars were plenty fast, he could live with Alonso at that age.

Senna may have wanted to finish his career with Ferrari but no way would he walked away from the best car, his career is defined by wanting to be in the best car, as soon as Mclaren could no longer deliver that he left.

He did beat him in 1992, didn't he? Macca was arguably the better of the two cars.

He was seen as the best in the sport by some, others (myself included) felt Prost was the better of the two and in his final year of F1 Prost once again beat a solid field of drivers that included Senna, and all after sitting out a full year.

What was said is that Senna was the best of his generation and that's what I disagree with. He certainly had the pure talent to be just that but since he resorted to things other than driving frequently, and was as arrogant as he was, he took away from his place on the list of greats for me personally.

At the time of his death the NKOTB was Schumacher and while perhaps not as good as Senna at that point, he was just about there and had he not died, Schumacher would have have beaten him just like everyone else. The one thing about Senna is that while he was quicker than everyone else, he was only just so. Schumacher on the other hand was initially just faster than everyone but once he got a couple years of experience under his belt, he was considerably faster than everyone including his teammates and none of them came close consistently until Rubens in a couple of seasons.

Please understand that I know full well the capabilities of Senna in a race car, but being the best entails more than just that. Knowing that Senna was faster than Prost on pure pace, it speaks to Prost's completeness because although Senna was generally a touch quicker he was NEVER outclassed and held his own extremely well. That's why I rate Prost the best driver of that generation.

I think almost all you write in this post is reasonable except for the BIB. On pure speed Senna was a lot faster than his opposition by F1 standards. He ha a bigger advantage over most of his team mates than Schumacher had over his. Just look at his record against Prost who was also incredibly quick. Senna came up against stronger opposition than Schumacher and for pure speed was further ahead of them.

I rate Schumacher as the greatest of all time but Senna did have a bigger pace advantage over his peers.

First of all, he was considerably faster that all his teammates with the exception of Prost outside a few races where he was "inexplicably" faster when Prost knew he got every last bit of performance his car had to offer. The worst kept secret in McLaren history was the fact that Senna was Honda's golden boy and they made sure his equipment received that little bit more attention. That's not a level playing field.

Schumacher on the other hand whooped up on his teammates so easily that Brawn and company can't explain it. So good was Schumacher that his teammates would provide feedback as to what the cars were doing and they'd make changes to address the issues for his teammates but Schumacher hit the track and there was no difference in timing. As far as I know that was NEVER the case with Senna and setup changes affected him to some degree.

You're talking about level playing fields when it comes to Schumacher?

What happened to Schumacher in 2010 when Bridgestone were no longer making bespoke tyres for him?

He was 40+, that's what happened to him

The adaptable Schumacher who you talk about being able to drive anything couldn't adapt so was just as vulnerable as other drivers given the circumstance.

Wow, you really wrote a lot of carp in this post Poker, not your usual style.

Schumacher is seemingly an all time great? The weakened F1 is always an argument, for a different discussion maybe. But he "seemingly" is an all time great?

And maybe, just maybe, you are still missing the whole point. No one said that his status elevated BECAUSE of Senna's death. Just that his already high status got to silly levels after his death. And this is exactly what has happened. Senna was amazeballs when he was racing, that's not debated. But years after the Senna craze has calmed down, some people can remember that he also had a dark side, with regards to racing of course. Hell, that interview with Steward is actually there to show you that not everyone thought that what Senna touched was gold, even back then. You somehow twisted this that these claims are from people not liking Senna in the first place... And of course there may be people who never bought into the Senna craze, but you'd have to be blind not to see that the guy was the real deal.

Dying young always added some romanticism. And as bad as it sounds, I don't think some people, especially the younger generations, would know the names of Winkelhock, Pryce or Ratzenberger if it wasn't for their deaths. Of course, arguably some of them never got their chance to shine.

The seemingly was the comparison with Senna were Schumacher didn't need to be killed in order to gain a higher level of respect that Senna.

Senna was viewed as the man up to his death, even over Schumacher, if anything his death elevated Schumacher's position in F1 as he just had tier 2 drivers to contend with for a good while after that, but apparently Senna's death just exaggerated his career, he never was the man in the first place, he never was viewed as the best at that time.

There's been loads of drivers killed in F1 were is all the romanticism about these drivers, I don't see it.

Where are you getting these from? That's a borderline delusional opinion. Who in his right mind would say that Senna wasn't the man in the first place?

This all stems from Blake's post, which if you read properly you'll see that he says that a death tends to elevate someone's ALREADY great status.

I hope you understand how and why. No one saw him old and fat like Mansell for example not being able to fit in the car. Or past it like Jacques where his own BAR crew was laughing at him spinning around the track.

I read it for what he said, that Senna's career has been exaggerated because of his death which always tends to happen, however he wouldn't be saying this about someone like Jim Clark for instance.

Then I worry about your reading skills. I did not get this from Blake's comment. He clearly mentions that Senna's status was already elevated. If this is not easy to understand then I don't know what to say

Blake clearly was saying how driver's reputation's get inflated if they get killed.

He did beat him in 1992, didn't he? Macca was arguably the better of the two cars.

With Schumacher having 1 car failure and Senna having 6. Senna finished only 3 points back. It's not really a fair comparison.

Yeah plus how do you determine which was actually the fastest car, this seems to be simply google the points and then Schumacher beat him, also Schumacher had a better engine in the first half of the season but then again this all ties into who had the best package?

The seemingly was the comparison with Senna were Schumacher didn't need to be killed in order to gain a higher level of respect that Senna.

Senna was viewed as the man up to his death, even over Schumacher, if anything his death elevated Schumacher's position in F1 as he just had tier 2 drivers to contend with for a good while after that, but apparently Senna's death just exaggerated his career, he never was the man in the first place, he never was viewed as the best at that time.

There's been loads of drivers killed in F1 were is all the romanticism about these drivers, I don't see it.

Where are you getting these from? That's a borderline delusional opinion. Who in his right mind would say that Senna wasn't the man in the first place?

This all stems from Blake's post, which if you read properly you'll see that he says that a death tends to elevate someone's ALREADY great status.

I hope you understand how and why. No one saw him old and fat like Mansell for example not being able to fit in the car. Or past it like Jacques where his own BAR crew was laughing at him spinning around the track.

I read it for what he said, that Senna's career has been exaggerated because of his death which always tends to happen, however he wouldn't be saying this about someone like Jim Clark for instance.

Then I worry about your reading skills. I did not get this from Blake's comment. He clearly mentions that Senna's status was already elevated. If this is not easy to understand then I don't know what to say

Blake clearly was saying how driver's reputation's get inflated if they get killed.

Just once would you actually READ what I post, instead of seeing what you want to see, pokerman??? Damn, this gets irritating. As Siao7 has pointed out, I said Senna was considered a GREAT before he died, as was Dale Earnhardt Sr,... and that I felt that both of them had their legendary status increase after they died on the track. You don't have to agree with me, that is your right, but, respond to what I was actually saying.

Senna was already seen as the best in the sport before he died. I don't think his reputation suddenly grew afterwards

He was seen as the best in the sport by some, others (myself included) felt Prost was the better of the two and in his final year of F1 Prost once again beat a solid field of drivers that included Senna, and all after sitting out a full year.

What was said is that Senna was the best of his generation and that's what I disagree with. He certainly had the pure talent to be just that but since he resorted to things other than driving frequently, and was as arrogant as he was, he took away from his place on the list of greats for me personally.

At the time of his death the NKOTB was Schumacher and while perhaps not as good as Senna at that point, he was just about there and had he not died, Schumacher would have have beaten him just like everyone else. The one thing about Senna is that while he was quicker than everyone else, he was only just so. Schumacher on the other hand was initially just faster than everyone but once he got a couple years of experience under his belt, he was considerably faster than everyone including his teammates and none of them came close consistently until Rubens in a couple of seasons.

Please understand that I know full well the capabilities of Senna in a race car, but being the best entails more than just that. Knowing that Senna was faster than Prost on pure pace, it speaks to Prost's completeness because although Senna was generally a touch quicker he was NEVER outclassed and held his own extremely well. That's why I rate Prost the best driver of that generation.

Prost beat Senna in 1993 because he had much the better car, what is more telling is that Williams replaced Prost with Senna the year after, some forumers may think that Prost was better, the people that count in the paddock thought otherwise.

Senna was half a second quicker than Hill, this was basically the level of competition that Schumacher had left to beat, and you think Schumacher is beating Senna in 1995, 1996 and 1997 in an inferior car, really?

This is based on folklore and is simply not true.

For some reason the entire fanbase (with the exception of very few of us) has been led to believe that in 1993 only the Williams had an active suspension system when Senna's car had a very sophisticated system as well. And while the Williams was indeed better, it was only just so. It's preposterous that Senna won 5 races to Prost's 7 yet Prost was fortunate because the car is what allowed him to win? That's the biggest croc of manure I've ever heard in the history of modern F1 and highly unfair to Prost.

Schumacher was the knew youngblood in the game when Senna died, but had Senna stuck around he'd have received the same fate as everyone else at the hands of the young phenom. He'd have been closer than anyone else, but he would've been able to draw the back of Michael's car with his eyes closed.

If I remember right, Schumi had out scored Senna over the last half of '93 and won all the races up to Senna's accident in '94, so Mercenary might be right on young Schumi vs older Senna. Sadly, we will never know the answer.

Senna was already seen as the best in the sport before he died. I don't think his reputation suddenly grew afterwards

He was seen as the best in the sport by some, others (myself included) felt Prost was the better of the two and in his final year of F1 Prost once again beat a solid field of drivers that included Senna, and all after sitting out a full year.

What was said is that Senna was the best of his generation and that's what I disagree with. He certainly had the pure talent to be just that but since he resorted to things other than driving frequently, and was as arrogant as he was, he took away from his place on the list of greats for me personally.

At the time of his death the NKOTB was Schumacher and while perhaps not as good as Senna at that point, he was just about there and had he not died, Schumacher would have have beaten him just like everyone else. The one thing about Senna is that while he was quicker than everyone else, he was only just so. Schumacher on the other hand was initially just faster than everyone but once he got a couple years of experience under his belt, he was considerably faster than everyone including his teammates and none of them came close consistently until Rubens in a couple of seasons.

Please understand that I know full well the capabilities of Senna in a race car, but being the best entails more than just that. Knowing that Senna was faster than Prost on pure pace, it speaks to Prost's completeness because although Senna was generally a touch quicker he was NEVER outclassed and held his own extremely well. That's why I rate Prost the best driver of that generation.

Prost beat Senna in 1993 because he had much the better car, what is more telling is that Williams replaced Prost with Senna the year after, some forumers may think that Prost was better, the people that count in the paddock thought otherwise.

Senna was half a second quicker than Hill, this was basically the level of competition that Schumacher had left to beat, and you think Schumacher is beating Senna in 1995, 1996 and 1997 in an inferior car, really?

This is based on folklore and is simply not true.

For some reason the entire fanbase (with the exception of very few of us) has been led to believe that in 1993 only the Williams had an active suspension system when Senna's car had a very sophisticated system as well. And while the Williams was indeed better, it was only just so. It's preposterous that Senna won 5 races to Prost's 7 yet Prost was fortunate because the car is what allowed him to win? That's the biggest croc of manure I've ever heard in the history of modern F1 and highly unfair to Prost.

Schumacher was the knew youngblood in the game when Senna died, but had Senna stuck around he'd have received the same fate as everyone else at the hands of the young phenom. He'd have been closer than anyone else, but he would've been able to draw the back of Michael's car with his eyes closed.

The 93 Williams was a much better car. That Senna managed to win 5 races was a testament to him but in an age of unreliability if you were in the second or third best car you could often pick off wins. Let's have a look at those 5 wins -

Brazil - Prost spun out when leading by a long way. Europe - That famous win in the wet. Prost constantly on the wrong tyres and pitted 7 times if I remember rightly. Monaco - Prost stalled multiple times in the pitlane

Then he didn't win again until the last two races of the season. Prost had mentally checked out a bit once the championship was sewn up.

Prost regularly out qualified Senna by a second and the rookie Hill out qualified Senna 12:4.

Senna was already seen as the best in the sport before he died. I don't think his reputation suddenly grew afterwards

He was seen as the best in the sport by some, others (myself included) felt Prost was the better of the two and in his final year of F1 Prost once again beat a solid field of drivers that included Senna, and all after sitting out a full year.

What was said is that Senna was the best of his generation and that's what I disagree with. He certainly had the pure talent to be just that but since he resorted to things other than driving frequently, and was as arrogant as he was, he took away from his place on the list of greats for me personally.

At the time of his death the NKOTB was Schumacher and while perhaps not as good as Senna at that point, he was just about there and had he not died, Schumacher would have have beaten him just like everyone else. The one thing about Senna is that while he was quicker than everyone else, he was only just so. Schumacher on the other hand was initially just faster than everyone but once he got a couple years of experience under his belt, he was considerably faster than everyone including his teammates and none of them came close consistently until Rubens in a couple of seasons.

Please understand that I know full well the capabilities of Senna in a race car, but being the best entails more than just that. Knowing that Senna was faster than Prost on pure pace, it speaks to Prost's completeness because although Senna was generally a touch quicker he was NEVER outclassed and held his own extremely well. That's why I rate Prost the best driver of that generation.

Prost beat Senna in 1993 because he had much the better car, what is more telling is that Williams replaced Prost with Senna the year after, some forumers may think that Prost was better, the people that count in the paddock thought otherwise.

Senna was half a second quicker than Hill, this was basically the level of competition that Schumacher had left to beat, and you think Schumacher is beating Senna in 1995, 1996 and 1997 in an inferior car, really?

This is based on folklore and is simply not true.

For some reason the entire fanbase (with the exception of very few of us) has been led to believe that in 1993 only the Williams had an active suspension system when Senna's car had a very sophisticated system as well. And while the Williams was indeed better, it was only just so. It's preposterous that Senna won 5 races to Prost's 7 yet Prost was fortunate because the car is what allowed him to win? That's the biggest croc of manure I've ever heard in the history of modern F1 and highly unfair to Prost.

Schumacher was the knew youngblood in the game when Senna died, but had Senna stuck around he'd have received the same fate as everyone else at the hands of the young phenom. He'd have been closer than anyone else, but he would've been able to draw the back of Michael's car with his eyes closed.

It simply is true. When Prost and Senna were team mates, Prost only got two poles each season, while Senna got thirteen. Both. Times. Yet in 1993 Prost was regularly whipping Senna to pole and himself got thirteen poles, while the "King of Pole" managed a single one. And in Brazil, one of the shortest tracks on the calendar Prost's margin was a whopping 1.8 seconds. Or how about Spa, where Senna was an incredible 2.3 seconds behind? Even Monaco, a circuit where Senna famously crushed his team mate by over a second in both years they raced together, Prost still managed to eke out almost a second over Senna. Yet somehow you're claiming that the Williams was only slightly better? Please. It was in a different league and the only reason that the McLaren was in the hunt was because of Senna performing miracles with his car. And let's not forget, of course, that the reason Senna left McLaren for Williams was because he wanted to be in the best car and the Williams was the one to be in.

What would have happened against Schumacher is anybody's guess. But if Hill could challenge him, then what on earth makes you think Senna couldn't?

The 93 Williams was a much better car. That Senna managed to win 5 races was a testament to him but in an age of unreliability if you were in the second or third best car you could often pick off wins. Let's have a look at those 5 wins -

Brazil - Prost spun out when leading by a long way. Europe - That famous win in the wet. Prost constantly on the wrong tyres and pitted 7 times if I remember rightly. Monaco - Prost stalled multiple times in the pitlane

Then he didn't win again until the last two races of the season. Prost had mentally checked out a bit once the championship was sewn up.

Prost regularly out qualified Senna by a second and the rookie Hill out qualified Senna 12:4.

You really think Hill was that good?

Yeah, even as a Prost fan it's pretty cut and dried that the Williams was a better car. Even if one believes Prost was driving that much better than Senna (and the qualifying margins are pretty implausible on that front) then I don't know how you explain Hill vs. Senna in light of what happened when they were briefly teammates the next year.

Senna's 5 wins were more down to Prost not getting the most from the car (or making mistakes) than Senna doing heroics. I personally think that Alain was driving nowhere near his potential that season for a number of reasons.

Hill only got a sniff of Schumacher because of the penalties in '94. It is true that Hill was nowhere near Senna's level and it is true that Schumacher didn't have a Prost to compete against. But Senna was getting older and he would have been 37 in 1997, he was already feeling uneasy when refuelling was brought back in and the speeds where getting faster. Do you honestly think 100% that Schumacher couldn't have beat him? Bear in mind that Senna wanted to finish at Ferrari according to LdM, so we would never know how that would have played.

I don't think Senna would have won 1994 as he would be 30-0 down...

But Senna out qualified Hill by an average of 0.7 in there 3 races and in the only race they did (Brazil) Senna was just about to lap him and both had clean races. Schumacher lapped Hill in 4 of the first 6 races in 1994. That is how bad the Williams was.

That is the same Hill, who beat Schumacher head to head in the wet later in the year in Japan, lost some other races narrowly and hounded him around Adelaide in the final round all race before they collided. Senna in the mid season onwards Williams would have been walking races.

The 1995 Williams was also the class of the field, Hill completely messed that title up.

Williams was bad at the beginning of the season; only when they upgraded the car it became the best package on the field. So while Senna was 30-0 in the beginning, he would have most certainly caught up. But, since we are at the what if territory, it may also be that withoutmissing 4 races, Schumacher would have beaten Hill by a big margin by the end. Or even Senna, albeit not by much. Who knows?

Indeed, we will never know.

I kept the discussion to on track performance as the actual points situation was largely down to penalties. By by the seasons end, Hill (inferior to Schumacher) was able to beat, match or get close to Schumacher most of the time meaning Senna would having likely won easily or narrowly beat Schumacher in nearly all those races, possibly suffering one or two narrow losses over those last 10 races (the period once Williams was able to seriously compete).

1994 I think Schumacher might have just held on for the title but there is every chance that over the last 10-11 races in Senna hands the 1994 Williams would look more like the 1992 or 1993 Williams so it might have been close come the seasons end but that still may not have been enough if Schumacher drove for points.

I think 1995 would have been predictable in the Williams would have the best car and likely still the best or not far from the best drive and no drivers would have moved team.

1996 is becomes more blurry as literally anything could have happened with regards to driver movements or retirements. Maybe Williams would have signed Schumacher alongside Senna knowing Senna is aging. But the champion would likely be a Williams driver. 1996 on wards Senna certainly would have been going toward past his peak and it all depends on how competitive Schumachers car would have been but again likely a Senna title. 1997 on wards is too far into the "what if" to speculate for me. If I had to guess, I would say Schumacher wins the title in 1994 and Senna in 1995 and 1996.

I think almost all you write in this post is reasonable except for the BIB. On pure speed Senna was a lot faster than his opposition by F1 standards. He ha a bigger advantage over most of his team mates than Schumacher had over his. Just look at his record against Prost who was also incredibly quick. Senna came up against stronger opposition than Schumacher and for pure speed was further ahead of them.

I rate Schumacher as the greatest of all time but Senna did have a bigger pace advantage over his peers.

First of all, he was considerably faster that all his teammates with the exception of Prost outside a few races where he was "inexplicably" faster when Prost knew he got every last bit of performance his car had to offer. The worst kept secret in McLaren history was the fact that Senna was Honda's golden boy and they made sure his equipment received that little bit more attention. That's not a level playing field.

Schumacher on the other hand whooped up on his teammates so easily that Brawn and company can't explain it. So good was Schumacher that his teammates would provide feedback as to what the cars were doing and they'd make changes to address the issues for his teammates but Schumacher hit the track and there was no difference in timing. As far as I know that was NEVER the case with Senna and setup changes affected him to some degree.

You're talking about level playing fields when it comes to Schumacher?

What happened to Schumacher in 2010 when Bridgestone were no longer making bespoke tyres for him?

He was 40+, that's what happened to him

The adaptable Schumacher who you talk about being able to drive anything couldn't adapt so was just as vulnerable as other drivers given the circumstance.

What a lot of baloney yet again. Can you do the same things you were doing in your 20's? You think his age had nothing to do?

The seemingly was the comparison with Senna were Schumacher didn't need to be killed in order to gain a higher level of respect that Senna.

Senna was viewed as the man up to his death, even over Schumacher, if anything his death elevated Schumacher's position in F1 as he just had tier 2 drivers to contend with for a good while after that, but apparently Senna's death just exaggerated his career, he never was the man in the first place, he never was viewed as the best at that time.

There's been loads of drivers killed in F1 were is all the romanticism about these drivers, I don't see it.

Where are you getting these from? That's a borderline delusional opinion. Who in his right mind would say that Senna wasn't the man in the first place?

This all stems from Blake's post, which if you read properly you'll see that he says that a death tends to elevate someone's ALREADY great status.

I hope you understand how and why. No one saw him old and fat like Mansell for example not being able to fit in the car. Or past it like Jacques where his own BAR crew was laughing at him spinning around the track.

I read it for what he said, that Senna's career has been exaggerated because of his death which always tends to happen, however he wouldn't be saying this about someone like Jim Clark for instance.

Then I worry about your reading skills. I did not get this from Blake's comment. He clearly mentions that Senna's status was already elevated. If this is not easy to understand then I don't know what to say

Blake clearly was saying how driver's reputation's get inflated if they get killed.

He did beat him in 1992, didn't he? Macca was arguably the better of the two cars.

With Schumacher having 1 car failure and Senna having 6. Senna finished only 3 points back. It's not really a fair comparison.

Yeah plus how do you determine which was actually the fastest car, this seems to be simply google the points and then Schumacher beat him, also Schumacher had a better engine in the first half of the season but then again this all ties into who had the best package?

You are forgetting that Berger had 2 wins as well and beat Brindle. The McLaren wasn't at Williams level, but it won 5 races. To Benetton's 1.

Where are you getting these from? That's a borderline delusional opinion. Who in his right mind would say that Senna wasn't the man in the first place?

This all stems from Blake's post, which if you read properly you'll see that he says that a death tends to elevate someone's ALREADY great status.

I hope you understand how and why. No one saw him old and fat like Mansell for example not being able to fit in the car. Or past it like Jacques where his own BAR crew was laughing at him spinning around the track.

I read it for what he said, that Senna's career has been exaggerated because of his death which always tends to happen, however he wouldn't be saying this about someone like Jim Clark for instance.

Then I worry about your reading skills. I did not get this from Blake's comment. He clearly mentions that Senna's status was already elevated. If this is not easy to understand then I don't know what to say

Blake clearly was saying how driver's reputation's get inflated if they get killed.

Just once would you actually READ what I post, instead of seeing what you want to see, pokerman??? Damn, this gets irritating. As Siao7 has pointed out, I said Senna was considered a GREAT before he died, as was Dale Earnhardt Sr,... and that I felt that both of them had their legendary status increase after they died on the track. You don't have to agree with me, that is your right, but, respond to what I was actually saying.

What's the difference between saying a drivers reputation gets increased and a drivers reputation gets inflated, is this just semantics of not using the actual word that was said?

Senna was already seen as the best in the sport before he died. I don't think his reputation suddenly grew afterwards

He was seen as the best in the sport by some, others (myself included) felt Prost was the better of the two and in his final year of F1 Prost once again beat a solid field of drivers that included Senna, and all after sitting out a full year.

What was said is that Senna was the best of his generation and that's what I disagree with. He certainly had the pure talent to be just that but since he resorted to things other than driving frequently, and was as arrogant as he was, he took away from his place on the list of greats for me personally.

At the time of his death the NKOTB was Schumacher and while perhaps not as good as Senna at that point, he was just about there and had he not died, Schumacher would have have beaten him just like everyone else. The one thing about Senna is that while he was quicker than everyone else, he was only just so. Schumacher on the other hand was initially just faster than everyone but once he got a couple years of experience under his belt, he was considerably faster than everyone including his teammates and none of them came close consistently until Rubens in a couple of seasons.

Please understand that I know full well the capabilities of Senna in a race car, but being the best entails more than just that. Knowing that Senna was faster than Prost on pure pace, it speaks to Prost's completeness because although Senna was generally a touch quicker he was NEVER outclassed and held his own extremely well. That's why I rate Prost the best driver of that generation.

Prost beat Senna in 1993 because he had much the better car, what is more telling is that Williams replaced Prost with Senna the year after, some forumers may think that Prost was better, the people that count in the paddock thought otherwise.

Senna was half a second quicker than Hill, this was basically the level of competition that Schumacher had left to beat, and you think Schumacher is beating Senna in 1995, 1996 and 1997 in an inferior car, really?

This is based on folklore and is simply not true.

For some reason the entire fanbase (with the exception of very few of us) has been led to believe that in 1993 only the Williams had an active suspension system when Senna's car had a very sophisticated system as well. And while the Williams was indeed better, it was only just so. It's preposterous that Senna won 5 races to Prost's 7 yet Prost was fortunate because the car is what allowed him to win? That's the biggest croc of manure I've ever heard in the history of modern F1 and highly unfair to Prost.

Schumacher was the knew youngblood in the game when Senna died, but had Senna stuck around he'd have received the same fate as everyone else at the hands of the young phenom. He'd have been closer than anyone else, but he would've been able to draw the back of Michael's car with his eyes closed.

I believe it's already been pointed out that Prost qualified on pole 13 times out of the 16 races, Prost who got destroyed by Senna in qualifying when they were teammates.

Senna won Brazil after Prost retired from pole position, he won the wet race at Donington because Prost is basically not that good in the wet, even his teammate Hill beat him. Senna won Monaco after Prost had qualified on pole, I'm surmising that Prost made a bad start because he only finished 4th. Senna then won the last 2 races of the season after McLaren introduced a brand new car, Prost had already won the title by then.

You accuse me of talking rubbish then ascertain with out doubt that Scumacher would have beaten Senna season after season in an inferior car, Schumacher who had hard work in beating Hill.

In the brief time Senna raced against Schumacher in the Williams he managed to out qualify Schumacher everytime despite having a slower car, the races themselves were different but then again how legal was Schumacher's car?

If I remember right, Schumi had out scored Senna over the last half of '93 and won all the races up to Senna's accident in '94, so Mercenary might be right on young Schumi vs older Senna. Sadly, we will never know the answer.

You mean in 1992 when he beat Senna by a whopping 3 points, in 1993 Senna beat Schumacher easily, strange how that gets overlooked?

In 1992 Senna had 4 more retirements than Schumacher, in head to head finishes he beat Schumacher 5-1, Schumacher beat Senna in a similar way let's say to how Ricciardo beat Verstappen last season.

First of all, he was considerably faster that all his teammates with the exception of Prost outside a few races where he was "inexplicably" faster when Prost knew he got every last bit of performance his car had to offer. The worst kept secret in McLaren history was the fact that Senna was Honda's golden boy and they made sure his equipment received that little bit more attention. That's not a level playing field.

Schumacher on the other hand whooped up on his teammates so easily that Brawn and company can't explain it. So good was Schumacher that his teammates would provide feedback as to what the cars were doing and they'd make changes to address the issues for his teammates but Schumacher hit the track and there was no difference in timing. As far as I know that was NEVER the case with Senna and setup changes affected him to some degree.

You're talking about level playing fields when it comes to Schumacher?

What happened to Schumacher in 2010 when Bridgestone were no longer making bespoke tyres for him?

He was 40+, that's what happened to him

The adaptable Schumacher who you talk about being able to drive anything couldn't adapt so was just as vulnerable as other drivers given the circumstance.

What a lot of baloney yet again. Can you do the same things you were doing in your 20's? You think his age had nothing to do?

Yet in his final season of F1 he was apparently better than Rosberg, a moving goal post perhaps?

Where are you getting these from? That's a borderline delusional opinion. Who in his right mind would say that Senna wasn't the man in the first place?

This all stems from Blake's post, which if you read properly you'll see that he says that a death tends to elevate someone's ALREADY great status.

I hope you understand how and why. No one saw him old and fat like Mansell for example not being able to fit in the car. Or past it like Jacques where his own BAR crew was laughing at him spinning around the track.

I read it for what he said, that Senna's career has been exaggerated because of his death which always tends to happen, however he wouldn't be saying this about someone like Jim Clark for instance.

Then I worry about your reading skills. I did not get this from Blake's comment. He clearly mentions that Senna's status was already elevated. If this is not easy to understand then I don't know what to say

Blake clearly was saying how driver's reputation's get inflated if they get killed.

He did beat him in 1992, didn't he? Macca was arguably the better of the two cars.

With Schumacher having 1 car failure and Senna having 6. Senna finished only 3 points back. It's not really a fair comparison.

Yeah plus how do you determine which was actually the fastest car, this seems to be simply google the points and then Schumacher beat him, also Schumacher had a better engine in the first half of the season but then again this all ties into who had the best package?

You are forgetting that Berger had 2 wins as well and beat Brindle. The McLaren wasn't at Williams level, but it won 5 races. To Benetton's 1.

Brundle himself only finished 12 points behind having had 5 podiums in 16 races, then we circle back to the fact that Senna had 5 mechanical retirements to the 2 mechanical retirements of Schumacher.

He did beat him in 1992, didn't he? Macca was arguably the better of the two cars.

With Schumacher having 1 car failure and Senna having 6. Senna finished only 3 points back. It's not really a fair comparison.

Yeah plus how do you determine which was actually the fastest car, this seems to be simply google the points and then Schumacher beat him, also Schumacher had a better engine in the first half of the season but then again this all ties into who had the best package?

You are forgetting that Berger had 2 wins as well and beat Brindle. The McLaren wasn't at Williams level, but it won 5 races. To Benetton's 1.

And without 5 extra retirements Senna would have comfortably outscored Schumacher. What's your point on this?

I read it for what he said, that Senna's career has been exaggerated because of his death which always tends to happen, however he wouldn't be saying this about someone like Jim Clark for instance.

Then I worry about your reading skills. I did not get this from Blake's comment. He clearly mentions that Senna's status was already elevated. If this is not easy to understand then I don't know what to say

Blake clearly was saying how driver's reputation's get inflated if they get killed.

Again, read again. Or better have Blake explain it to you

He said their reputations increase, what is the difference?

No difference apparently. You're being deliberately obtuse, so don't worry about it, waste of my time

He did beat him in 1992, didn't he? Macca was arguably the better of the two cars.

With Schumacher having 1 car failure and Senna having 6. Senna finished only 3 points back. It's not really a fair comparison.

Yeah plus how do you determine which was actually the fastest car, this seems to be simply google the points and then Schumacher beat him, also Schumacher had a better engine in the first half of the season but then again this all ties into who had the best package?

You are forgetting that Berger had 2 wins as well and beat Brindle. The McLaren wasn't at Williams level, but it won 5 races. To Benetton's 1.

And without 5 extra retirements Senna would have comfortably outscored Schumacher. What's your point on this?

Mikey the argument was that Schumacher would never beat Senna with a lesser car. He arguably did that over a season. Retirements are part of the game so it doesn't change anything. He did beat him over a season